David Bain

Donsteppa

I'm one of the (few!?) people who haven't made my mind up firmly either way. 
Whichever side I'm hearing from always seems compelling until I hear the other... And I haven't been that interested in the case to read every last detail to conclude which trumps which. Aucklandwarlord's link is damning, but then so was the interview I heard with Justice Binny tonight too ('how can he completely prove his innocence when the police destroyed some evidence earlier than they were supposed to' - to paraphrase.) 
On compensation, goodness knows how you put a price on that sort of thing... But on the surface of it, if you've spent 13 years in prison and then been found not guilty after the Privy Council intervened, then I find it hard to argue $0. If the $900k covers the bills and then some, then maybe that does the trick...

Donsteppa

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="aucklandwarlord" data-cid="602442" data-time="1470123347">The best way to tell would have been gunshot residue swabs to David and Robin Bains hands. That would tell who pulled the trigger. 
Rumour around the office a few years back had it that a junior detective constable suggested swabbing David's hands and was shouted down by a more senior member. For the life of me I don't know why it didn't happen at Robin Bain's post mortem. It would be standard practice these days</blockquote>
 
Bugger, that would have saved a whole lot of hassle...

Billy Tell

The single most disturbing aspect of the case was one of the jurors in the 2nd trial joining Bain for celebratory drinks afterwards...

MN5

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Donsteppa" data-cid="602443" data-time="1470123555">
<div>
I'm one of the (few!?) people who haven't made my mind up firmly either way. 
Whichever side I'm hearing from always seems compelling until I hear the other... And I haven't been that interested in the case to read every last detail to conclude which trumps which. Aucklandwarlord's link is damning, but then so was the interview I heard with Justice Binny tonight too ('how can he completely prove his innocence when the police destroyed some evidence earlier than they were supposed to' - to paraphrase.) 
On compensation, goodness knows how you put a price on that sort of thing... But on the surface of it, if you've spent 13 years in prison and then been found not guilty after the Privy Council intervened, then I find it hard to argue $0. If the $900k covers the bills and then some, then maybe that does the trick...
</div>
</blockquote>
 
So to sum up it sounds like Police investigating more thoroughly could have saved a hell of a lot of time, money and delivered a more concrete verdict all those years ago ?
 
I mean who can completely understand a families dynamics but I'd say it would be EXTREMLY unlikely that Robin Bain would have done away with them all except one ( but any family in which a 22 year old still has a paper run isn't quite run of the mill so who really knows )

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="602432" data-time="1470122570">
Well a quick read of Wikipedia confirmed that he has lost in the region of 4 mill and it's actually 4 books ( Christ, isn't one enough ? ) 
That link from AW is pretty damning on Bain, no two ways about it. 
While we're on the topic can someone explain how Mark Lundy ( 500 ) got a retrial which ended in EXACTLY the same verdict ?
</blockquote>
 
With an ego like his 4 books is probably just the start. If the 4 mill figure is a quote from him I'd take it with an Ayers rock sized grain of salt too.
 
The Dunedin cops at the time seemed like they had some serious issues . The poisoned professor case was around this time too and it resulted in two hung juries and an acquittal despite the accused telling her friend she would poison someone the exact way her ex was subsequently poisoned . 
I don't know how much of this book is true but if even half of it is the cops down there were in a very sorry state around the time Bain killed his family <a class="bbc_url" href="http://nzpca.co.nz/cover-ups-and-cop-outs-the-book/">http://nzpca.co.nz/cover-ups-and-cop-outs-the-book/</a>

canefan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="602439" data-time="1470123084">
<div>
I know that technology has moved on since 1994 but ( aucklandwarlord, Crazy Horse if you're around ) wouldn't a forensics team be able to tell if a gunshot wound to the head was suicide or not ?
</div>
</blockquote>
Which one? Apparently the evidence indicated he was shot in the head twice. So did Robin shoot himself twice in the head with a .22 rifle or was it someone else?

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Siam" data-cid="602428" data-time="1470122058">
<div>
I used to sit next to him in psychology tutorials at Otago uni - you never forget those jerseys. 
I don't know if he did it. 
But there's something awry in our country when you lose 13 years and don't get compo. I can feel empathy for that. It's the sort of shit I'd expect from a corrupt 3rd world place. 
Yes I understand that rules are followed but I expect better.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Thats even more disturbing than being paid to fuck an ugly Ginger.

Smudge

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="602437" data-time="1470122921">
<div>
So if I understand this correctly it was either him killing everyone under the roof, or his father decided to let one of them do a paper run but kill everyone else including himself?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Obviously Robin was a big fan of the ODT and didn't want his neighbours to miss out on reading their morning paper over breakfast.

Crucial

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="602447" data-time="1470124075">
<div>
So to sum up it sounds like Police investigating more thoroughly could have saved a hell of a lot of time, money and delivered a more concrete verdict all those years ago ?
 
I mean who can completely understand a families dynamics but I'd say it would be EXTREMLY unlikely that Robin Bain would have done away with them all except one ( but any family in which a 22 year old still has a paper run isn't quite run of the mill so who really knows )
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
and that's where other untested scenarios could possibly form an explanation. e.g. Robin killed all except Stephen (and obviously David, who was out), David comes home and sees the horrible situation, flips and kills Robin then has a struggle with Stephen and kills him too etc etc
 
May sound far fetched but most of the arguing about who is right or wrong is only examining two exact scenarios when it could be that neither is true.

aucklandwarlord

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="602505" data-time="1470131311">
and that's where other untested scenarios could possibly form an explanation. e.g. Robin killed all except Stephen (and obviously David, who was out), David comes home and sees the horrible situation, flips and kills Robin then has a struggle with Stephen and kills him too etc etc 
May sound far fetched but most of the arguing about who is right or wrong is only examining two exact scenarios when it could be that neither is true.</blockquote>In which case he'd still be guilty of at least one murder, possibly two? I'm not sure "revenge for killing the others" would be a defence to killing Robin... 
Also, wasn't the struggle in Stephen's room? It would seem highly far fetched that the entire family was killed yet Stephen stays in his room until David gets home, they have a scuffle for no reason and David decides he's gonne kill him. David loses his glass lens and gets the scratches and bruises on him before shooting him dead with the gun he's just killed Robin with. 
The most bizarre thing for me with Robin being the killer is that He did it with a full bladder and got the paper in first. Surely you take a piss and then set about your task. You don't give a shit about reading about the Otago team for the coming weekend...

aucklandwarlord

.

Crucial

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="aucklandwarlord" data-cid="602529" data-time="1470135013">
<div>
In which case he'd still be guilty of at least one murder, possibly two? I'm not sure "revenge for killing the others" would be a defence to killing Robin...
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
I'm not saying he is, just saying that the arguments are based on two scenarios only. 1. David killed everyone, went on his paper run, came back and killed Robin then tried to make it look like a murder/suicide and has steadfastly protested his innocence thereafter. or 2. Robin kills everyone while David is out and kills himself just as David comes home.
I actually find that the evidence wholly fits neither scenario which is also why there are so many back and forth nitpickings on matters.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if something very ugly happened from both of them, with David's actions being spur of the moment and he almost immediately shut his memories off under stress.
Remember that David himself has never extrapolated on his original claim that Robin had killed everyone.

aucklandwarlord

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="602532" data-time="1470135562">
I'm not saying he is, just saying that the arguments are based on two scenarios only. 1. David killed everyone, went on his paper run, came back and killed Robin then tried to make it look like a murder/suicide and has steadfastly protested his innocence thereafter. or 2. Robin kills everyone while David is out and kills himself just as David comes home. 
I actually find that the evidence wholly fits neither scenario which is also why there are so many back and forth nitpickings on matters. 
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if something very ugly happened from both of them, with David's actions being spur of the moment and he almost immediately shut his memories off under stress. 
Remember that David himself has never extrapolated on his original claim that Robin had killed everyone.</blockquote>
 
Fair points. While I agree that it is focussed on two versions of events, that's probably because they're the most highly likely. Domestic murders are generally very straight forward. In any case that is examined to the nth degree, sometimes there are anomalies that don't quite fit in, but a case has to be presented warts and all. It's normally human error that causes these types of things (such as the discrepancy in the timing of the computer for the non-handwritten suicide/apology note), which often play a big part in a defence case. 
If David did kill them, I agree that he probably believes his own version of events a therefore shut out the exact sequence of events.

aucklandwarlord

As an aside, in the early 1990's, who would write a typed suicide note? Surely you pick up a pen and paper...

Billy Tell

Et voilÃ . 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/82734851/Callinan-report-highlights-issues-in-David-Bains-innocence-appeal'>http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/82734851/Callinan-report-highlights-issues-in-David-Bains-innocence-appeal</a>

canefan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="aucklandwarlord" data-cid="602536" data-time="1470136419">
<div>
As an aside, in the early 1990's, who would write a typed suicide note? Surely you pick up a pen and paper...
</div>
</blockquote>
And he did it on the family computer didn't he? Must have taken a while to boot up....

Billy Tell

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="canefan" data-cid="602540" data-time="1470137202">
<div>
And he did it on the family computer didn't he? Must have taken a while to boot up....
</div>
</blockquote>
Not to forget the dial-up modem, dot matrix printer, MS-DOS 5.0.

aucklandwarlord

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Billy Tell" data-cid="602539" data-time="1470137175">
<div>
Et voilÃ . <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/82734851/Callinan-report-highlights-issues-in-David-Bains-innocence-appeal'>http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/82734851/Callinan-report-highlights-issues-in-David-Bains-innocence-appeal</a>
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Martin Van Beynen has written some great articles in the wash up of the trial and subsequent publicity. After the trial, while Wendy Petrie was busy fist pumping, jurors were hugging Bain and John Campbell was standing next to Bain with the world's biggest hard-on, Van Beynen wrote an article saying how he thought the jury had got it wrong and how half the jury were either struggling to stay awake or not paying attention to what was going on. It was a refreshing swim against the tide from the other articles that were published at the time
 
From Callihan's report regarding not everything adding up perfectly
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
 
People in real life and the courts that adjudicate upon conflicting facts know that all of the questions cannot always be answered, and all of the issues neatly resolves. This is such a case
</blockquote>

TeWaio

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="aucklandwarlord" data-cid="602529" data-time="1470135013">
<div>
In which case he'd still be guilty of at least one murder, possibly two? I'm not sure "revenge for killing the others" would be a defence to killing Robin... 
Also, wasn't the struggle in Stephen's room? It would seem highly far fetched that the entire family was killed yet Stephen stays in his room until David gets home, they have a scuffle for no reason and David decides he's gonne kill him. David loses his glass lens and gets the scratches and bruises on him before shooting him dead with the gun he's just killed Robin with. 
The most bizarre thing for me with Robin being the killer is that He did it with a full bladder and got the paper in first. Surely you take a piss and then set about your task. You don't give a shit about reading about the Otago team for the coming weekend...
</div>
</blockquote>

Morning wood?

Billy Tell

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="aucklandwarlord" data-cid="602547" data-time="1470140418">
<div>
Martin Van Beynen has written some great articles in the wash up of the trial and subsequent publicity. After the trial, while Wendy Petrie was busy fist pumping, jurors were hugging Bain and John Campbell was standing next to Bain with the world's biggest hard-on, Van Beynen wrote an article saying how he thought the jury had got it wrong and how half the jury were either struggling to stay awake or not paying attention to what was going on. It was a refreshing swim against the tide from the other articles that were published at the time
 
From Callihan's report regarding not everything adding up perfectly
</div>
</blockquote>
The trouble with juries in such case is the pool of jurors to choose from. Without casting aspersions, you are basically looking at
 
1) Beneficiaries
2) Unemployed/"home-maker"
3) Retired
 
And ideally, 12 people who had never ever heard of David Bain. I remember reading an interview with the guy who had drinks with Bain after the verdict. Did not paint a pretty picture of impartiality.

The Silver Fern

David Bain